Comments

>> We are now shopping for my wife and I will look at another Subaru. I will consider an Outlander but I'd like to see if it can pass the ramp test, i.e. if the AWD is truly capable of distributing power to each wheel, enough to get it to climb in those slippery scenarios.

Of course Outlander is truly capable of distributing power to each wheel. According to Mitsu site, the Outlander delivers up to 60% of power to rear wheels in Lock mode. According to the NY Times article, 4-speed automatic Subaru can do only 50%:

Subaru with manual transmission can deliver up to 100% only to rear axel, but not to the front axel. Anyway I assume you shopping for a car with auto transmission?

It appears the Outlander numbers look better in both normal and extreme conditions. .

>> Personally, we've owned one Mitsu and 2 Subarus, and had a better experience with the Subarus, but I'm open minded.

The Mitsu you&#146;ve owned probably was a Chrysler build in Illinois with Mitsu label, which explains quality issues. The Outlander on the other hand is build entirely in Japan.

>> I could care less that you dismiss those videos. I certainly don't.

These Subaru marketing videos can not possibly qualify as independent objective tests. Marketing is biased by nature. Car salesman is the last person I would trust. And the results of these &#147;tests&#148; are way too black and white to be true: every AWD system there is bad except for the &#147;great Subaru&#148;. The NY Times article is a little more independent. Subaru there does not even look that good compare to Audi Quattro, Volkswagen 4mothion, Mitsubishi Super Select II, and Volvo TRACS: all four can deliver the extreme 100 to 0/0 to 100 torque split. Best AWD systems can even drive a car on a single wheel &#150; Subaru can&#146;t do that! And both of your Subaru-made videos advocate Subaru&#146;s distinctive superiority over Volvo and Volkswagen? No way. Anyone with some common sense would dismiss Subaru&#146;s marketing setup.

>> Nope, the XT Sports has VDC, but the one on the ramp is a basic X model, with no traction control. There are many ways you can tell - the lack of a hood scoop (not a turbo), the wheels, the mirrors are smaller, and a few other differences.

Nope, every 2008 Forester model has traction control. You did not even check your specs again!

My wife owned a Mitsubishi Mirage sedan, but to be honest I don't recall where it was made. It was an OK vehicle, just nothing special.

The video in question isn't really a marketing video, it's a dealer training video. It wasn't intended for a general audience, but rather for dealers to learn about Subaru AWD so they can speak intelligently about it to customers.

I guess I don't see a motive for them to rig the test. Plus, how would they even do that? I can see how they could use a FWD CR-V for it to fail, but not how the Forester could succeed by cheating - you clearly see the rollers and wheels moving.

That NY Times chart would be nice if it were accurate, but it's riddled with mistakes, which I'll discuss in a seperate post.

Nope, every 2008 Forester model has traction control. You did not even check your specs again!

Sorry, but no, not all models have traction and stability control, straight from Subaru.com:

That NY Times chart is riddled with errors. Scary that they even published that.

Audi Quattro cannot do a max of 0/100 to 100/0. Audi uses a Torsen limited-slip center differential with a bias ratio of 2 to 1. By design, the limit of that system is 33/67 to 67/33. It's just plain wrong.

Even if the bias ratio was 9 to 1, it would be 10/90 to 90/10. A Torsen is completely incapable of sending 100% to one axle. It's just impossible by design.

Also, the A3 doesn't use a Torsen at all. It's Golf-based so it uses a Haldex part-time system.

Chrysler Group minivans don't even offer AWD. How old is that chart? Mama-mia.

If it is indeed old enough to include AWD Chrysler vans, then they are also wrong about the Audi TT. Back then the Audi TT actually used VW's system of AWD, since it was a Golf-based system built by Haldex. That defaulted to a 100% FWD split, not 50/50.

Lexus RX300? OK, that gives us an idea about how old the chart is. The RX330 replaced it, and the RX350 has since replaced that model. The last model year for the RX300 was 2003.

Back then, the Audi TT did have a Haldex. So the "Audi all" part is definitely wrong. It's wrong even today - the A3's system is different than the A4's.

The Hyundai Santa Fe's AWD was not full-time back then, either. In fact the traction control only functioned on the front axle, because it was an on-demand part-time system. Don't ask for a source because I didn't seriously shop the Sante Fe at the time.

Volvo uses a Haldex that is not full-time, it also defaults to FWD, like the Audi TT. In fact they use the same supplier. Not surprisingly, Haldex is Swedish. Here's a little write-up about them:

First they list the 5 speed manual, call it 50/50 default and 0/100 max. The 50/50 part is actually correct. The 0/100 is not.

Why? Very simple. There is a viscous coupling center differential. It's fluid-filled, and as the two axles move at different speeds, the fluid hardens and locks the two axles together. It's not a thinking system, it is purely mechanical. The 0/100 claim makes it seem rear-biased, but it's not biased at all - it just locks the axles at the same speed. In other words, if it can send 100% to the rear, it can send 100% to the front. The Times should have said 0/100 to 100/0.

Personally, I owned one of those, VC equipped with 5 speed manual, 1998 model. It still uses the same system today. For MY2009, they will add traction and stability control to that model.

How did it work in the snow, out in the real world? Great. Add too much gas in a turn and you could feel the system cycle power fore and aft. If you forced it to oversteer it would send all the power to the front wheels and it would pull me out of the skid. If power were 50/50 I'd be in the weeds because the rear wheels would still be spinning, but that didn't happen. It went to 100/0, i.e. all power to the front wheels, and pulled me safely out of the skid. It was very controllable and a hoot to drive.

Next, the Active AWD system, found on the low-price automatic models. They say 90/10 default (which is correct) up to 50/50 max, which is incorrect. If the front axle was getting 50% of the power or more, the front wheels would have spun like crazy on that ramp. Remember it didn't spin at all. So the front axle was getting 0 power. It should be 100/0 to 0/100.

The VW Passat is also wrong, by the way. The latest model uses a Haldex and would not be full-time. The previous model used a Torsen so the limits were 67/33 to 33/67, i.e. same 2 to 1 bias ratio for the Torsen as Audi's.

Any how, for Subaru, they have a bit of an AWD identity crisis, because they are marketing 4 different AWD systems (if you add the STI). They label them all under "Symmetrical AWD", but the truth is each system is different. Effective, but different.

PS I've witnesssed, in person, a Benz 4Matic and a BMW successfully climb those ramps, and also watched a Lexus RX and an Audi A4 (torsen) fail. Yet another error by the Times because they say the Audi can climb one.

>> The video in question isn't really a marketing video, it's a dealer training video. It wasn't intended for a general audience, but rather for dealers to learn about Subaru AWD so they can speak intelligently about it to customers.

Yea, right! Bashing other manufacturers for &#147;training&#148; purposes. And then o-o-ps: the &#147;traning&#148; video shows up on youtube and who knows where else? Probably on computers screens of those Subaru sales people so they can show it off to car buyers. .

>> I guess I don't see a motive for them to rig the test.

Motive of car marketing: selling more cars. It&#146;s that simple. .

>> Plus, how would they even do that? I can see how they could use a FWD CR-V for it to fail, but not how the Forester could succeed by cheating - you clearly see the rollers and wheels moving.

I don&#146;t even want to go there: they&#146;re so many ways to fix the &#147;test&#148;, especially in a movie. .

>> That NY Times chart would be nice if it were accurate, but it's riddled with mistakes. Scary that they even published that.

Well, when I see two contradicting opinions: one by the independent New York Times and the other one by biased Subaru enthusiast, which opinion do you think I should trust? The article is one of the best I&#146;ve seen about the AWD systems, the guy definitely knows what he is talking about. In order to dismiss his article, you&#146;d have some credentials. It&#146;s also tough to be wrong for NY Times: they can get sued big Times!

>> Audi Quattro cannot do a max of 0/100 to 100/0. Audi uses a Torsen limited-slip center differential with a bias ratio of 2 to 1. By design, the limit of that system is 33/67 to 67/33. It's just plain wrong. Even if the bias ratio was 9 to 1, it would be 10/90 to 90/10. A Torsen is completely incapable of sending 100% to one axle. It's just impossible by design.

That&#146;s what I am saying, not every person really qualified to dismiss expert opinion. I guess you probably just don&#146;t know the complete picture. Even the http://wikicars.org/en/Quattro says about Quattro: &#147;up to 100% of torque can be transferred to either axle&#148;. It says it there twice. So the guy from NY Times is right. .

>> Chrysler Group minivans don't even offer AWD. How old is that chart? Mama-mia.

This 2002 or 2003 article is still newer then that &#147;proof&#148; of yours, which you posted to me in the other thread, which was dated by year 2000 and hosted on some noname site which even could not afford to buy a domain name.

And since we primarily talking about the Subaru, the 2002 Subaru info is almost as good even for the year 2014. According to your own words, Subaru&#146;s AWD system in 1998 was the same, as it&#146;s today. [&#147;I owned VC equipped with 5 speed manual, 1998 model. It still uses the same system today&#148;]

Anyway, Subaru is little slow on new technologies and on innovation. The brand new 2009 Forester uses same-old-same-old 4-speed auto tranny, which means they going to sell that car with dated AWD and dated tranny probably at least through the year 2014! Also Subaru is coming up this year first time ever with its first diesel engine: welcome to 21 century!.

>> Now, let's specifically look at what they say about Subaru's systems. First they list the 5 speed manual, call it 50/50 default and 0/100 max. The 50/50 part is actually correct. The 0/100 is not. Next, the Active AWD system, found on the low-price automatic models. They say 90/10 default (which is correct) up to 50/50 max, which is incorrect. If the front axle was getting 50% of the power or more, the front wheels would have spun like crazy on that ramp. Remember it didn't spin at all. So the front axle was getting 0 power. It should be 100/0 to 0/100.

The NY Times guy is probably right again. In his other article &#147;Introduction to All Wheel Drive systems&#148; he actually calls this auto transmission Subaru&#146;s AWD system &#147;part time&#148;: &#147;Subaru has for many years been quietly offering radically different AWD systems in the same car, depending on the transmission choice. The manual transmission Legacies and Imprezas use a full time system that is split 50-50 with viscous couplings for limiting slip. In the automatic transmission versions, however, the system is a part time&#148;.

I mean really: 10% of rear axel torque you can barely call full-time. Is it really even 10% or he just rounded the number? I&#146;d call that a fake full-time AWD. Again, there is too much marketing from Subaru, too little technology.

Sorry I missed it or I would have. As I said, anytime I've actually check on wikki facts, I realized they are just like anything else on the internet, opinion rather than fact so I dismiss most of what is on there as complete crap cause it has no rep.

Now since the 2009 Forester is available for sale, let's look at the features and specs comparo for both SUVs. Common features are not mentioned. Blue color indicates data for the 4 cylinder Outlander SE (Special Edition), which is mostly identical to XLS, except for engine and transmission. The Outlander SE would be a counterpart to the Forester LL Bean, I guess.

Correct me, if something is not accurate, but the Outlander appears to be a much better deal.

The Edmunds comparison tool for the 08 ES AWD and the 09 2.5X may be of interest.

I'm more of a base model guy and would go for the manual tranny non-turbo Forester and the ES Outlander (in real life I might just go for the FWD Mitsu, but for comparison purposes, I looked at the base AWD). Plus there's a stop order on the Forester turbos (Stop Sale).

Best thing the Mitsu has going is the 10 year drivetrain warranty, although the 60k part of it isn't quite as good as the 7/70 I had on my old Voyager. Actually my current Quest came with a 5/60 drivetrain, and I hit 60k during the third year, so Mitsu really should stretch that out a bit to correspond more realistically with typical miles driven a year. Definitely a better basic warranty on the Mitsu.

Not sure about the CVT transmissions. I miss having a stick. You'd think a CVT would easily last those 10 years, having fewer parts and all. I'd like to drive one for a couple of days.

Crash ratings aren't out for the Forester yet afaik - Outlander does well.

Both of them have 16" tires - have you priced tires lately? I don't want to even think about the cost of an 18" or bigger tire with the price of crude these days.

>> I'm more of a base model guy and would go for the manual tranny non-turbo Forester and the ES Outlander.

The 4 cylinder Outlander was not available last year, otherwise I would consider it, since I do a heavy urban driving in Chicago, but I&#146;d get the Special Edition - you can get so much car for your dollar. .

>> Plus there's a stop order on the Forester turbos

Technical issues, perhaps..

>> Not sure about the CVT transmissions. I miss having a stick. You'd think a CVT would easily last those 10 years, having fewer parts and all. I'd like to drive one for a couple of days.

CVT is shiftable on the Outlander. I believe even paddle shifters are present. The V6 Outlander suppose to get a twin clutch tranny next year, which would be cool..

>> Both of them have 16" tires - have you priced tires lately? I don't want to even think about the cost of an 18" or bigger tire with the price of crude these days. I don't tow, but that could be a deal killer for tire kickers.

Not a concern for me. By the time I need new tires, I get a new car. Otherwise if we commit to drive SUV, be prepared for higher costs of gas, tires, etc..

>> People still use CDs? :P

Some do. Also these are CD-Rs with MP3 capability. You can stuff so much music into 6 CDs, or you can get the single DVD version Outlander with build-in MP3 music server, Sirius radio and iPod connector.

Ordinarily I wouldn't think too much about this class of vehicle unless you're willing to call them tall wagons, but my sister got a used Forester a year ago and I've enjoyed driving it. It seems a bit more versatile than my Outback in some ways and almost could take the place of our minivan.

None of them really get the mpg I'd like to see - I'd really like to get ~25/26 in town and over 30 on the road while still being able to tote bulky camping gear around.

The Outlander's tailgate looks interesting too btw.

CDs = moving parts = last century. I want an AUX type jack that will accept an MP3 player or USB stick. Give me steering wheel controls that integrate with it too. Oh yeah, while I'm dreaming, make it standard, lol.

Not to get too far afield, but have you done a similar comparison with the new CR-V?

>> CDs = moving parts = last century. I want an AUX type jack that will accept an MP3 player or USB stick. Give me steering wheel controls that integrate with it too. Oh yeah, while I'm dreaming, make it standard too, lol.

Yea, and give me a music server with LCD playlist management, which streams my music collection wirelessly off my home PC or off my online storage account. Voice activated, please.

Note the Outlander's low repair costs due to a better warranty, and note its great depreciation. So by going with the Outlander, you get much better equipped car for less money..

>> And yes, folks, chelentano is extremely pro-Mitsubishi, have no doubt.

No doubt, folks, extremely pro-Mitsubishi: what a great car! .

>> While I'm replying to you - have you found a video to prove the Outlander can climb one of those ramps that simulate driving on ice?

I was not looking for any video. That video &#147;test&#148; you are so proud of is made by Subaru on Subaru dealership. That fact and tooo black-and-white results of the &#147;test&#148; make for me no reason to respect the &#147;test&#147; results. According to the video, Subaru&#146;s AWD is great and everything else is junk. Car salesman is the last person I would trust in respect to a car he sells.

Subaru&#146;s AWD systems are not created equal. Some are great, but not the best though. Some are mediocre. The 2009 4-speed auto Forester is practically a part-time AWD car: the car is front axle biased with 90/10 front/rear torque split under normal driving conditions. Subaru had to cheat using this nearly part-time AWD system to deliver some reasonable gas mileage. The Outlander on the other hand has true full-time AWD and it is more balanced with 60/40 torque split.

You would have to add a moonroof, leather, and 6CD to the Outlander to get to the equipment level that is standard on the Forester XT Limited. That's more than $3000 in options by my math, enough to reverse that ranking.

you get much better equipped car

Really? No moonroof, no leather, no CD changer, and it's better equipped? It is cheaper, but that's because more things are options rather than standard, as on the Forester XT.

CR has the TCO for Outlander at around $42k, so Edmunds numbers seem way high. Forester's numbers are even lower. You have to subscribe to their web site for any link to work.

Subaru&#146;s AWD is great and everything else is junk

Nobody made that claim. In fact, you did the opposite - you keep saying the Mitsu's AWD system is better.

Subaru had to cheat using this nearly part-time AWD

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. It is full time and constantly adjusts the torque split, constantly.

Not your fault, though you didn't cite a source for us to try to contact them to correct all their mistakes.

Anyhow, right off the top of my head, here are some of the many, many mistakes that chart makes:

* it uses the old EPA number for the Mitsu, 19/26, revised down to 17/24* it overlooks the SportShift trans on the Subaru (this is a matter of preference)* trailer wiring exists for the Forester, that chart implies it does not* Bluetooth is indeed offered on the Forester, that chart says its not* the chart says no DVD player, also wrong, Forester will play DVDs on the NAV screen* no mention of Forester's Sirius satellite radio capability* no mention of ability to play MP3 and WMA files* no mention of ability to play CD-Rs

So basically it looks like that list was made by a Mitsubishi dealer who has never even seen a Forester, much less driven one.

Also, there are a few things the Forester has that the Mitsu does not:

While on the subject of full disclosure the more powerful Subaru (224 vs 220 for the Outlander) is a turbo and requires premium.). I don't know what you'd get if you ran regular (or how good the knock control is). I do know you pay a premium for premium(pun intended) I'll take the 6 cyl, 6 speed, that runs on regular thanks.